Anand Viswanath v. Mahatma Gandhi University and 2 others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ANAND VISWANATH AGED 56 YEARS S/O.RAYAPPAN VADHYAR, RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, GOVT. COLLEGE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT 259-1 22 ACRE, MICHELE GIRI, MISSION VAYAL ROAD, MARAYUR POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685620. BY ADVS. JEENA JOSEPH G.DAMODARA PANICKER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTER. 2THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, MUNNAR, PIN-685612. 3DR.AJI C.PANICKER, ENQUIRY COMMISSION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560, REPRESENTED THROUGH REGISTRAR M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560. BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE SMT.PARVATHY K. - GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021 2`** ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner, before his retirement, was working as an Associate Professor in the services of the Government College, Munnar. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, since the facts are not greatly in dispute, the petitioner suspected five girl students of malpractice in examination and reported it to the competent Authorities. This led to an enquiry against them, finding that two had committed such malpractice. He says that, however, as an afterthought and to cause vengeance on him, the five girl students then made a complaint against him, alleging that he had sexually harassed them; and that this led to an enquiry being conducted against him by the University, which culminated in Ext.P8 report. 3. The petitioner alleges that Ext.P8 report was prepared behind his back and that subsequently, the respondent – Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G.University), appears to have constituted a Committee of their Syndicate Members, who made a further report, namely Ext.P12, allegedly after recording the statements of the five complainants. He says that he was also asked to furnish a statement, which he refused because the proceedings against him was illegal and unlawful. He says that, nevertheless, Ext.P12 has ## **`WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021 3`** now been settled by an incompetent Enquiry Commission and that it has led to Ext.P13 proceedings of the M.G. University, recommending the Government to take necessary action against him. He thus prays that Exts.P12 and P13 be set aside. 4. I have heard Smt.Jeena Joseph – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University and Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 5. Sri.Surin George Ipe answered the afore allegations of the petitioner saying that there were totally three reports obtained by the University into the allegations and contra-allegations of the petitioner and the five girl students. He pointed out that Ext.P3 was the first enquiry report with respect to the allegations made by the petitioner against the five girl students of malpractice in examinations; while Ext.P8 was the subsequent report submitted to the Vice-Chancellor, pursuant to the complaint of the five students against him. He then showed me that Ext.P12 was the result of a consequential necessary action, after causing an investigation by a Commission of two Syndicate Members. He submitted that these reports have not been yet culminated in any action to the detriment of the petitioner and that the University has only referred the ## **`WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021 4`** matter to the Government for appropriate action against him. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 6. Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader, however, had a different spin to the tale, saying that, in fact, the petitioner was enquired into by a Committee constituted under the provisions of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (‘POSH Act’), however, admitting that no final report has yet been settled or orders issued against him. She thus added that the petitioner’s challenge to Exts.P12 and P13 is without any purpose because they are only internal enquiry reports and recommendations; and that, in any event, Ext.P13 does not reflect any guilt on his part in the sexual harassment allegation, but relates more to the malpractice allegedly committed by the five girl students. She also thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 7. I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through the various materials on record. 8. Before I proceed further, I must remind everyone that law has now been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Vijayakumaran C.P. (Dr.) v. Central University of Kerala and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 426],** qua_ the manner in which sexual harassment imputations against a teacher will have to be ## **`WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021 5`** considered and concluded. The said judgment makes it incontestable that even the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), under the ‘POSH Act’, would not be solely sufficient to impose punishment upon the accused and that a proper enquiry under its provisions will have to be taken forward and completed. 9. That said, in the case at hand, Ext.P12 would perspicuously show that the statements of the complainant students were taken behind the back of the petitioner and was then asked to make his statement, which he refused saying that he has already made it at the time when earlier proceedings were completed. Obviously, Ext.P12 is not the result of an enquiry under the statutory Scheme; but, at the best, is only an internal one, which may or may not have found guilt against him. 10. Therefore, Ext.P12 on its own cannot be the basis on which any detriment can be imposed upon the petitioner; and I am consequently of the view that petitioner need not be concerned about its contents because any punishment can be imposed upon him only through a proper enquiry, which the learned Government Pleader says is still underway. 11. As regards Ext.P13, there can be no doubt that it reflects ``` WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021 6 ``` mostly on the allegations against the five students of examination malpractice; though it has a passing reference that the role of the petitioner and another teacher is also suspected. This does not mean that the allegation against the petitioner in Ext.P13 has anything to do with the sexual harassment charges against him, though this Court is not in a position to understand its meaning or tenor any further. 12. Nevertheless, it would not be necessary for this Court to continue to consider this case on its merits any further because, as I have already said above, Ext.P12 on its own cannot result in any detriment to the petitioner and this is affirmed by both Sri.Surin George Ipe and Smt.Parvathy K. In the afore circumstances, leaving liberty to the competent Authorities to initiate and complete any action against the petitioner as may be legally permitted, subject to limitation - if applicable, I close this writ petition; however, clarifying that no rigour can be brought against the petitioner solely on account of Ext.P12. ## **Sd/-** **`DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE`** ``` MC/19.8 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021 7`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12545/2021`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN`| ||`W.A.NO.2847/07 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH`| ||`COURT OF KERALA DATED 07.12.2007.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT`| ||`PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE`| ||`CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF THE`| ||`M.G.UNIVERSITY DATED 20.09.2014.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE`| ||`SYNDICATE OF THE M.G.UNIVERSITY AND THE`| ||`SYNDICATE REPORT DATED 06.12.2014.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE`| ||`GIRL STUDENTS OF THE MUNNAR GOVT.COLLEGE`| ||`DATED 25.11.2014.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE`| ||`MEETING OF BASG DATED 17.08.2015 APPROVED`| ||`BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE`| ||`M.G.UNIVERSITY.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE`| ||`M.G.UNIVERSITY DATED 21.10.2015.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`22.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY`| ||`APPOINTING DR.JASMINE ALEX AS ENQUIRY`| ||`OFFICER.`| |`Exhibit P8`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF`| ||`DR.JASMINE ALEX AS ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED`| ||`22.05.2015.`| |`Exhibit P9`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`23.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY`| ||`FINDING THE MALPRACTICE OF THE STUDENTS.`| |`Exhibit P10`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY`| ||`THE PETITIONER TO THE STATE PUBLIC`| ||`INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 14.11.2016 TO`| ||`GET A COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT.`| |`Exhibit P11`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY`| ||`THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF THE M.G.UNIVERSITY`| ||`DATED 02.12.2016.`| |`Exhibit P12`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RE-ENQUIRY REPORT`| ||`OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSION DATED`| ||`04.11.2016.`| |`Exhibit P13`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE`| ||`M.G.UNIVERSITY DATED 01.12.2016 ISSUED`| ||`AGAINST THE PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P14`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 6.11.2020 UNDER THE RTI`| ## **`WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021 8`** ``` ACT BEFORE THE PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER OF THE M.G. UNIVERSITY. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P15A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 9.11.2020 UNDER THE RTI ACT. ```